Disposed¶10

Sapna Santosh Jadhav v. Savitribai Phule Pune University Thr. Its Director Board of Examination and Evaluation and Ors.

Bombay HC6 Aug 2025WP/18066/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court common order 14.10.2025 (Ghuge & Bhobe, JJ.): batch listing of matters unheard for paucity of time; remove office objections within two weeks; interim/ad-interim orders continue subject thereto; reply/rejoinder affidavits before next date; list after service; supply spare copies within 14 days else dismissal against unserved respondents on 15th day, notice returnable after four weeks if supplied; listing dates 18/11/2025 to 24/12/2025 (Fresh/Urgent/Due Admission, Urgent Order, Final Hearing).

What did the court decide?

Continuation of earlier ad-interim/interim orders, subject to removal of office objections within two weeks, with the batch listed afresh on the dates in the chart between 18/11/2025 and 24/12/2025; no substantive rights decided. ¶10

Sapna Santosh Jadhav vs Savitribai Phule Pune University Thr. Its Director Board of Examination and Evaluation and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶10

Issue for consideration

How are the matters in the chart at paragraph 7, which could not be taken up for hearing at 5.30 p.m. owing to paucity of time, to be proceeded with (compliance, interim protection, service and listing)?

¶8

Court's answer

All office objections in these matters shall be removed within two weeks.

¶9

Ratio / Principle

Subject to compliance with the direction on office objections, any ad-interim/interim order granted earlier shall continue.

¶10

Key takeaways

Affidavit in reply/rejoinder, if any, shall be filed before the next date.ratio¶11
Matters in which service of notice is awaited shall be put up after service.ratio¶12
Where notices could not be processed for want of spare copies, the petitioner shall supply spare copies for issuance of notice within 14 days.ratio¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

COMMON ORDER (Bombay High Court; Ravindra V. Ghuge & Ashwin D. Bhobe, JJ.; 14-10-2025) — Administrative listing order for a large batch of matters that could not be taken up at 5.30 p.m. for paucity of time (chart at para 7). Directions: (i) office objections in several matters to be removed within two weeks; (ii) subject thereto, earlier ad-interim/interim orders to continue; (iii) affidavit in reply/rejoinder, if any, to be filed before the next date; (iv) matters awaiting service of notice to be listed after service; (v) where notices could not be processed for non-supply of spare copies, petitioners to supply spare copies within 14 days, failing which the matters stand dismissed against the unserved respondents on the 15th day, and if copies are supplied the office to issue notice returnable after four weeks; (vi) matters listed between 18/11/2025 (Fresh Admission) and 24/12/2025 (Due Admission / For Final Hearing). No legal issue adjudicated; no statute or precedent engaged.

¶1

Sunny Thote .. 1 ..

¶2

common order

¶3

Digitally signed SUNNYANKUSHRAOTHOTE by SUNNYANKUSHRAOTHOTEDate: 2025.10.16 09:04:23 +0530

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION/ CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & ASHWIN D. BHOBE, JJ.

¶6

DATE : OCTOBER 14, 2025.

¶7

P.C. :-

¶8

At the time of rising at 5.30 p.m., the matters mentioned in the chart in paragraph No.7 hereunder, could not be taken up for hearing due to paucity of time.

¶9

In several of these matters, there are office objections. As such, all office objections shall be removed within two weeks.

¶10

Subject to compliance of the above, ad-interim/ interim order, if any granted earlier, would continue.

¶11

The affidavit in reply/rejoinder, if any, shall also be filed before the next date.

¶12

Matters in which service of notice is awaited, put up after service.

¶13

Matters in which though notices were issued, the office could not process the notice due to non-supply of spare copies, the Petitioner shall supply spare copies for issuance of notice within 14 days, failing which, the matters in which copies

¶14

Sunny Thote .. 2 .. common order

¶15

are not supplied, would stand dismissed as against the unserved Respondents on the 15^th day. If copies are supplied, office to issue notice to the unserved Respondents, returnable after four weeks.

¶16

Subject to the above, list these matters as under:-

¶17

Serial Nos. of matters on the Board	To be listed on	To be listed in the category
05	18/11/2025	Fresh Admission
07 to 30	18/11/2025	Fresh Admission
32 to 33	18/11/2025	Fresh Admission
36 to 39	18/11/2025	Fresh Admission
40 to 44	19/11/2025	For Urgent Admission
46	19/11/2025	For Urgent Order
48 to 52	19/11/2025	For Urgent Order
53 to 70	18/12/2025	Due Admission
72 to 97	24/12/2025	Due Admission
99 to 130	24/12/2025	Due Admission
131 to 134	24/12/2025	Due Admission
136 to 165	24/12/2025	Due Admission
166 to 183	24/12/2025	Due Admission
184 to 185	24/12/2025	For Final Hearing

¶18

(RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. )

¶19

(ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.)

Sapna Santosh Jadhav v. Savitribai Phule Pune University Thr. Its Director Board of Examination and Evaluation and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sapna Santosh Jadhav v. Savitribai Phule Pune University Thr. Its Director Board of Examination and Evaluation and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Manoj Sunil Ripote vs the Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai through Commissioner

Shakuntala Tulshiram Gangurde and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and Ors.

Swapnil Subhash Bansode vs Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation

Shilpa Jay Wagh Alias Kum. Pushpa P. Thakur vs State of Maharashtra Thr. Its Secretary, Tribal Development Dep. and Ors.

Ashok Narayan Solankar vs the State of Maha. Thr. Chief Sec. and Ors.

Shivank Verma vs New India Assurance Company Ltd. and Anr.